You haven't actually said what you hold the RFL responsible for.....perhaps you'd care to explain just how much of all this is their fault, and clarify exactly what you think they should have done, balancing this against what they actually did do.

Perhaps you could also expand on where you think Bradford Bulls would be if the RFL had not loaned the club £700,000, or funded the club when the financial mess hit home, or funded it when OK walked away.

Do tell.

Perhaps if you answer Adey's 9 direct questions he may comment on your 2.

Why?

If any of the annual central distribution of funds is paid in advance to a club, under normal accounting and tax rules that would surely be an advance and therefore repayable? Are you telling us that the RFL does not include that provision in its agreement with the SL clubs? Would that not make the RFL board grossly negligent, in putting the RFL in a position of advancing money to a club with no legal right to recover such advances?



Indeed it did. As it did every other SL club. although I presume you mean "partially-funded", since BBH had the usual other commercial income streams as well.

But you will not answer my question, which was "by how mch more than what a SL club would have been due to receive anyway?". Without knowing that value, we can have no way of judging what you allege.



Since you appear to be acknowledging that the amount to be withheld from OKB was to be any excess that the RFL paid to BBH (and, I presume, BBH (in Administration), although you appear to be getting a bit confused with your responses), then again without answering my earlier questions we can have no way of judging what you allege.

But your answer indicates quite clearly that an agreement was reached with other SL clubs, PRIOR to BBH entering administration, that a sum of money (value unclear) WOULD be deducted from the central funding provided to a subsequent purchaser of the business. So I have further questions for you here

See my answers above. You appear now to be narrowing the period in question down to that between early March 2012 and 26 June 2012. Again, we need to know the amount the RFL paid to BBH that was in excess of what it would have paid anyway, since that would appear to comprise a big part of what the RFL subsequently sought to recover through the central allocation confiscation. We are talking maybe around 15 weeks here? And, in that time, BBH received c.£500k from the "Pledge to Survive" campaign, plus gate receipts and such of the other commercial income streams as continued. The directors after the Hood regime was evicted seem not to have paid HMRC (or few others, for that matter) anything much at all - as is clear from the creditors list attached to the Statement of Affairs - so it seems unlikley that there can have been a material funding requirement over that period, over and above the funds already available to BBH. Not sustainable long-term, obviously, but over that 15 weeks very hard to envisage it amounting to anything more than a fraction of the total confiscation?

And anyway, as I noted above, surely a competant and responsible RFL board would have ensured that any such additional funding was clearly defined as loans, in advance of future funding, and therefore would rank as a creditor in the event of insolvency? Indeed, surely they would have retained their ealier Charge on the assets, or put in place a new one? Surely you are not suggesting gross financial negligence by the RFL board?



First hints of a straw man there? I merely observe that there seems to be no reference to the Joint Administrators being paid any fees for their work directly by any third party. Having a fair amount of experience in corporate insolvency, I am au fait with how Administrators have to propose what fees they are seeking to draw, and the means by which they will be paid.

Let's cut to the chase here. In their report dated 9/7/13, the Joint Administrators stated that their costs to date (and a totally utterly scandalous amount, in my view) were £349k. OF WHICH £133K HAD BEEN PAID BY THAT DATE - OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT. When you read the abstract or receipts and payments, it seems that amount was recovered out of the receipt for the sale of the assets (virtually all intangible) to OKB.

Oh, and the report states that the Joint Administrators' remuneration would be limited to that £133k.

I would invite you to comment?



Indeed that may be the case. But it has no relevance to the allegations you made, and to the questions I asked of you earlier this evening so we could better consider what you had alleged.



Indeed? So, let me get this right? You can make grand, sweeping statements - parts of which look to be little short of absurd (let alone disingenuous) to those of us with even a little understanding of such matters - but are unwilling to provide anything whatsoever to back up your allegations?

Not even broad generalisations of numbers, to support your broad generalisation allegations?

Well I feel sure our readers are quite capable of forming their own conclusions from that?

Oh, but funnily enough not every number I asked for IS subject to any commercial confidentiality agreement. You walked into the trap I set for you there. One of those numbers - the Joint Administrators' fees - I have already quoted from public record. Here is another one for the period from 26/6/12:

"Advance from the Rugby Football League - £381,278".

More detail about the nature and timing of this (it was received in instalments), how it arose, its relationship to payment of wages, and - in particular, that it was an advance of "Central distribution monies due to the Company" - is set out in the report. Maybe I should post the full text of the report on here? I suspect it would be quite interesting for many of our readers.

So we do actually KNOW one of the numbers I asked you for, but which you declined to provide.

Given RFL central funding was around £110k/month, as I recall, then it is certainly clear that the RFL DID advance more than the normal monthly funding over the Administration period. Although part of that was tied up with the Neonrain bid - so those trolls and others who consistently stated that the club had received more than it was due from the RFL over the Administration period were correct (sorry to say, fellow Bulls fans). I'd presume by about £160k?

But I struggle to establish any relationship between these sort of numbers, and the c. £1.3m confiscated from future owners.

Surely, without resorting to specific numbers but remaining in broad generalities, you can provide something to back up your allegation that the c. £1.3m confiscation was to recover what the RFL had had to pay out?

Because, if you cannot, then I am afraid the conclusion would be quite clear? Would it not?

And it is also a fact that the moneys retained by the RFL were actually shared amongst other clubs.

In fact, there was a vote held by the clubs to determne how the money was to be handled. Some on this forum actually know how the votes were cast.

I am getting the impression that given the posters inability to resight even common knowledge, the said individual is either a troll trying to cause a stir (thanks mat) or someone from the governing body attempting to make the RFL smell like roses.

You started this argument with your allegation about why the RFL confiscated the c.£1.3m from future, blameless owners of the club. That confiscation has clearly been instrumental in getting to the present awful situation and, as I have stated, with reasons, was a totally absurd decision IMO. To be better able to judge what the alternatives open to the RFL were, and therefore the extent to which such a seemingly absurd action could be at least partly explained and understood, I asked you for some facts. You declined to give them.

Even so, I will give some answer to yours. What should the RFL have done? Easy. Made every set of club owners (NOT directors - it was the fact that the Bulls' directors were NOT its majority owners that was a major cause of all this in the first place) put up a bond to cover the likely amount of creditors in the event of insolvency. And a separate bond, realisable quickly, to be enforced should material HMRC default arise. And to have done this years ago - at the start of SL, even, when the riches of the Sky money descended and clubs were supposed to use it to clear debts - not when a club is teetering on the brink. The horse has long bolted by then.

Now, can we have some answers from YOU please?

You keep trying to widen your argument out into areas that were not part of your original allegation. The questions you ask are entirely reasonable, but are of little relevance to the matter at hand. Can we stick to the subject of your allegation, please?

But I WILL make ONE point in response to your wider question "where you think Bradford Bulls would be if the RFL had not loaned the club £700,000" - I suspect probably still BBH, probably restructured and with a lower cost base, with the Hood regime long gone, but if not then the subject of a far far smaller insolvency than subsequently arose. And none of the damage done by the war between Caisley and Hood.

The action of RFL, in making the secret loans to the club and then taking the stadium in settlement, in the view of many made a bad situation far, far worse.

They'd have gone into administration somewhere between September and December 2011. The RFL wouldn't have seized the ground lease and £500k of supporters money wouldn't have been lost to no effect. I've had it confirmed by a rugby league journalist and someone close to Gary Getherington that the loan plus ground lease 'purchase' incensed the clubs and led them to vote for the new owner to be punished by keeping half the Sky money and sharing it between them.

Had the RFL not lent Peter Hood the money within weeks of giving the club a Grade B license, had they ordered an audit or an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders to raise capital, or indeed any combination thereof, there is probability that the club would still own the lease, the new owner wouldn't have been punished to the tune of £1.3 million and the club wouldn't be where it is in the first relegation season for years.

It was a bizarre decision, which only came out when the great 'Odsal vulture circling lie' was being told to cover what was essentially asset seizure.

The RFL are not the root cause of this fiasco but they have made it considerably and probably irreparably worse. They certainly lied about the Odsal purchase and likely lied again in respect of their role in the second administration.

Wait! I know this one....
Oh yes, I answered it in December

Nice, that came back in handy.

And I completely agree!

2 - When was OK made aware of this impediment? And, if it was not immediately upon his registering an interest then why not?



See my answers above. You appear now to be narrowing the period in question down to that between early March 2012 and 26 June 2012. Again, we need to know the amount the RFL paid to BBH that was in excess of what it would have paid anyway, since that would appear to comprise a big part of what the RFL subsequently sought to recover through the central allocation confiscation. We are talking maybe around 15 weeks here? And, in that time, BBH received c.£500k from the "Pledge to Survive" campaign, plus gate receipts and such of the other commercial income streams as continued. The directors after the Hood regime was evicted seem not to have paid HMRC (or few others, for that matter) anything much at all - as is clear from the creditors list attached to the Statement of Affairs - so it seems unlikley that there can have been a material funding requirement over that period, over and above the funds already available to BBH. Not sustainable long-term, obviously, but over that 15 weeks very hard to envisage it amounting to anything more than a fraction of the total confiscation?



And anyway, as I noted above, surely a competant and responsible RFL board would have ensured that any such additional funding was clearly defined as loans, in advance of future funding, and therefore would rank as a creditor in the event of insolvency? Indeed, surely they would have retained their ealier Charge on the assets, or put in place a new one? Surely you are not suggesting gross financial negligence by the RFL board?



First hints of a straw man there? I merely observe that there seems to be no reference to the Joint Administrators being paid any fees for their work directly by any third party. Having a fair amount of experience in corporate insolvency, I am au fait with how Administrators have to propose what fees they are seeking to draw, and the means by which they will be paid.

Let's cut to the chase here. In their report dated 9/7/13, the Joint Administrators stated that their costs to date (and a totally utterly scandalous amount, in my view) were £349k. OF WHICH £133K HAD BEEN PAID BY THAT DATE - OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT. When you read the abstract or receipts and payments, it seems that amount was recovered out of the receipt for the sale of the assets (virtually all intangible) to OKB.



Oh, and the report states that the Joint Administrators' remuneration would be limited to that £133k.

I would invite you to comment?



Indeed that may be the case. But it has no relevance to the allegations you made, and to the questions I asked of you earlier this evening so we could better consider what you had alleged.

Indeed? So, let me get this right? You can make grand, sweeping statements - parts of which look to be little short of absurd (let alone disingenuous) to those of us with even a little understanding of such matters - but are unwilling to provide anything whatsoever to back up your allegations?



Not even broad generalisations of numbers, to support your broad generalisation allegations?

Well I feel sure our readers are quite capable of forming their own conclusions from that?



Oh, but funnily enough not every number I asked for IS subject to any commercial confidentiality agreement. You walked into the trap I set for you there. One of those numbers - the Joint Administrators' fees - I have already quoted from public record. Here is another one for the period from 26/6/12And I've already dealt with that.'"

Not a single direct answer. Just a load of waffle that does precisely nothing to justify the confiscation.

I provided facts. Or deductions which could be either proved by or refuted by facts provided in answer to my questions. Mr Dweeb declined to provide any facts though.

The bit about the P&A charge on OKB is not relevant, as it clearly relates to ensuring the purchase consideration was paid. The Joint Administrators' progress report makes clear there was a dispute over payment of the final part of that, which was not resolved till a long time afterwards - a subject that has been raised on here anyway in the past.

He alludes for the first time to the "close relationship" between Caisley and Guilfoyle, and seems to be suggesting some kind of collusion and factual inaccuracies in the latter's reports? Now I bow to no one over concern over Caisley's actions over the whole period, as regular readers will be very much aware. So I would be very interested indeed in any facts in this regard that Mr Dweeb may wish to share with us. Unfortunately, all we have is vague allusions. And anyway, since Caisley was never a director over the period, why would this be relevant to securing advances of money off the RFL?

Mr Dweeb's allegation seems to amount to the RFL having advanced far more money to BBH than has been recorded or stated anywhere, without any kind of security, and that money was lost when BBH went into administration. Yet, should this be the case, he has advanced no proof whatsoever of it nor do any facts in the public domain support the allegation. He seems completely unable to back up his allegation.

I would be tempted to leave it at that. But, since he seems to feel so strongly about something he seems unable or unwilling to back up with facts, I guess you have to wonder if there is something else he is not saying that May be relevant?

Now the only other monies we KNOW we're paid to BBH by the RFL were for the purchase of the Odsal lease. At a "commercial value", which gave about another £1/2 m to BBH after the loans were repaid. Is he suggesting that maybe this was other than a transaction at commercial value? And that it was some part of THESE monies that the RFL was seeking to recover? Yes or no please, Mr Dweeb so we can either consider or discount this possibility?

Now if, perchance, he IS alluding to this, then there are some significant implications. Firstly, that the positions of those at the RFL who agreed to the transactions would clearly be totally untenable? Surely the confiscation was not engineered just to allow some officials to keep their jobs?

But secondly, if the confiscation WAS perchance to recover the money paid for the Odsal lease? Then once the confiscation period is complete then the Odsal lease should revert to the owners of the club, who will effectively have paid to buy back the lease through the confiscation of Central funding?

Now surely this is all too improbable to have any basis in fact? Yet Mr Dweeb has advanced no other plausible justification. So, frankly, I remain very puzzled indeed as to why he should have made the allegation.

Was thinking the same re his figues to make up the 1.3 million, but instantly discounted it as this would mean the RFL would have eventually charged the new owners for the lease, yet the RFL would still be the leaseowner (surely not!)

The posters failure to provide any detals of figures or proof to back up his claims is hurting his argument. The poster beleives that of the confiscated money taken from the Bulls, the full amount went straight back to the RFL. We all know this was not the case, as the money was shared out between the other SL clubs.

So in essence you are saying that because the RFL advanced circa £300k to P&A, there was a punishment of £1m which was distributed among the other Super league clubs?

Any evidence of this being the case? Or is it just another chip on the shoulder urban myth?

G'day Blake